Expen$ive Divorces

[FunInTheSunParticipant 8283]

Here’s a Forbes magazine article about super expensive divorces:

https://bit.ly/2Ft2nbG

Men are usually the ones who pay up after a divorce settlement–and in some cases, they still pay huge fortunes to their ex-wives in spite of the couple signing a pre-nup. It sure pays for women to be hypergamous…even though they are simultaneously strong and independent. When women say, “I don’t need a man,” to get by in life: it sounds bold. But isn’t it funny how they are super needy and helpless during a divorce trial?

Here’s another aspect of divorces that’s amusing to me: when lawyers use the word “accustomed.” Rich women’s lawyers say they were ACCUSTOMED to shopping sprees at the mall ($5000), getting a sun tan next to an Olympic-sized swimming pool, going to a spa twice a week ($200), getting their hair done once a week ($100), driving a Bentley to a country club for lunch ($100), taking summer vacations in Europe ($10,000), etc. Well…why can’t a rich man’s lawyer argue that he was ACCUSTOMED to his wife giving him a handjob while watching a late night TV show in their bedroom?

I look at websites for long-term relationships and the women have a list of qualities a man must have to be their husband. I keep seeing these terms in their lists: educated, professional career, smart, and sociable. Many CEOs of corporations have these qualities. So I figure their marriages will last a long, long time because their wives are pleased with their “performance.” But if these rich men can’t satisfy their wives with all their wealth and outstanding achievements, how the hell are the rest of us—the working poor and middle-class—supposed to keep our marriages functional, fun, and worthwhile (if we decide to get married)?!

I mean, if there are women who no longer want to be married to men who are stock brokers and make $1,000,000 a year, you can imagine how most of the women feel about their husbands who work at Home Depot or Walmart for minimum wage. They probably wish those guys would die so they can collect some life insurance money. And they’re probably more loyal to their hives than their own hard-working husbands.

"I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No.’" (Atlas Shrugged)

[JVBParticipant]

…….and they won’t learn from it either will they.

Peace is > piece.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22561]

FunInTheSun wrote:

I mean, if there are women who no longer want to be married to men who are stock brokers and make $1,000,000 a year, you can imagine how most of the women feel about their husbands who work at Home Depot or Walmart for minimum wage. They probably wish those guys would die so they can collect some life insurance money. And they’re probably more loyal to their hives than their own hard-working husbands.

Keep in mind that wives are not the only people with life insurance policies on their husbands.

Large corporations secretly take out life insurance on their workers.

I would not be surprised if some of the “accidents” that some companies executives had were for other executives at the same company to pocket life insurance money from their victim’s death.

Technically speaking, society consider most men to be worth more dead than alive.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

When I was young and dumb and didn’t have much, I thought marriage was an opportunity to build a life with someone. When I got a little older, swallowed a few red pills, and had some time to have years of hard work behind me and accumulate some assets, I saw it for what it was, a s~~~ty financial contract.

From 20 to 30, the concept of wife for me shifted from partner to parasite. Its painful reading about these guys losing multi-million dollar settlements, but ultimately, half is half, and that is too much to pay in a divorce whether its 100k or 100m.

FunInTheSun wrote:

Here’s another aspect of divorces that’s amusing to me: when lawyers use the word “accustomed.” Rich women’s lawyers say they were ACCUSTOMED to shopping sprees at the mall ($5000), getting a sun tan next to an Olympic-sized swimming pool, going to a spa twice a week ($200), getting their hair done once a week ($100), driving a Bentley to a country club for lunch ($100), taking summer vacations in Europe ($10,000), etc. Well…why can’t a rich man’s lawyer argue that he was ACCUSTOMED to his wife giving him a handjob while watching a late night TV show in their bedroom?

Yup…this is massive bulls~~~. If you are marrying someone, I’d like to think you at least are getting some sort of benefit from them. Upon time of divorce the only benefit a judge will quantify is monetary.

Furthermore…why is it women clap when they see articles like this?

https://www.elitedaily.com/news/world/mans-letter-calculates-stay-at-home-moms-earn/990159

They would all jump on board at the claim that the value of a house wife is at least 70k a year…until they are in divorce court. Suddenly then the value of a house wife is 0 and the husband needs to pay. Its bulls~~~, but hey, I’m not married and I don’t plan on it, so its not my problem!

[narwhalParticipant]

Beer wrote:

When I was young and dumb and didn’t have much, I thought marriage was an opportunity to build a life with someone. When I got a little older, swallowed a few red pills, and had some time to have years of hard work behind me and accumulate some assets, I saw it for what it was, a s~~~ty financial contract.

I don’t know that it’s dumb, so much as naïve. What you (and I) believe about marriage is what we were told by parents, schools, society, and government to be true. Believing that these institutions that were put in place for your best interest actually have your best interest in mind…isn’t exactly dumb.

FunInTheSun wrote:

I mean, if there are women who no longer want to be married to men who are stock brokers and make $1,000,000 a year, you can imagine how most of the women feel about their husbands who work at Home Depot or Walmart for minimum wage.

Well, these women know that divorce is not going to be a financial gain in itself. She’s going to divorce either because he’s actually a financial drain on her, it’s a wash, or she believe she has SMV to upgrade. I’d say monkey branching happens almost all the time. Even if the husbands spends more than he brings in, her first option is going to be try and get sympathy for her situation and make sure everyone knows what a loser he is. That will bring attention to herself, attract white knights, and cause less judgment on her when she eventually divorces.

Ok. Then do it.

[Secret Agent MGTOWParticipant 22546]

Beer wrote:

When I was young and dumb and didn’t have much, I thought marriage was an opportunity to build a life with someone. When I got a little older, swallowed a few red pills, and had some time to have years of hard work behind me and accumulate some assets, I saw it for what it was, a s~~~ty financial contract.
From 20 to 30, the concept of wife for me shifted from partner to parasite. Its painful reading about these guys losing multi-million dollar settlements, but ultimately, half is half, and that is too much to pay in a divorce whether its 100k or 100m.

FunInTheSun wrote:

Here’s another aspect of divorces that’s amusing to me: when lawyers use the word “accustomed.” Rich women’s lawyers say they were ACCUSTOMED to shopping sprees at the mall ($5000), getting a sun tan next to an Olympic-sized swimming pool, going to a spa twice a week ($200), getting their hair done once a week ($100), driving a Bentley to a country club for lunch ($100), taking summer vacations in Europe ($10,000), etc. Well…why can’t a rich man’s lawyer argue that he was ACCUSTOMED to his wife giving him a handjob while watching a late night TV show in their bedroom?

Yup…this is massive bulls~~~. If you are marrying someone, I’d like to think you at least are getting some sort of benefit from them. Upon time of divorce the only benefit a judge will quantify is monetary.
Furthermore…why is it women clap when they see articles like this?
https://www.elitedaily.com/news/world/mans-letter-calculates-stay-at-home-moms-earn/990159
They would all jump on board at the claim that the value of a house wife is at least 70k a year…until they are in divorce court. Suddenly then the value of a house wife is 0 and the husband needs to pay. Its bulls~~~, but hey, I’m not married and I don’t plan on it, so its not my problem!

This would be great if mens attorneys argued that according to women, housewives have all the skills and abilities to earn 70,000 a year, and also because they do all this every day, for long hours, require no time to train or receive any further education to get up to speed, so we are requesting zero alimony as there is no need for any.

Women want everything, but want responsibility and accountability for nothing.

[Branched offParticipant 10975]

If there was any other behaviour that could be so financially ruinous it would be illegal. Most western countries have limits on how much you can spend on a fruit machine. Gambling with you money can ruin your life.

However it is only men who get hurt and women benefit usually so society says its OK. Cuck culture likes it when women benefit and pats itself on the back for it. You good little cucks making laws to screw bad men over to help the girls…

A woman is like fire -fun to play with, can warm you through and cook your food, needs constant feeding, can burn you and consume all you own

[Author]

Posts